2.26.2008

Chris Dodd became the first former Democratic presidential candidate to endorse today, as he rallied behind his party's frontrunner. The reasons he gave were not necessarily that he wants Obama to be president more than Hillary, but rather that the train is leaving the station and slowing it down will only hurt Democrats in the fall: "It is now the hour to come together. I believe the hour has come now for us to make that choice – to stand up and say we’re going to get behind this candidacy... I don't want a campaign that is only divisive here, and there’s a danger of it becoming that."

Chris Dodd's endorsing Obama will have no significance in Ohio and Texas and the only state it could have mattered at all (CT) voted weeks ago. But the language he uses and the timing of his announcement exemplify why Clinton is so weak right now. Not only is she trailing in the delegate count, but she has to fight Obama's growing inevitability argument to prevent too many people from rallying behind him thinking that the primary is over. This is the position that she was in back in the fall, when she was picking up endorsement after endorsement. And now the roles have reversed, making it very difficult for Hillary to hope for a comeback.

To make matters worse, polls are continuing to show an erosion of her support in March 4th states, both in Ohio and in Texas. Yesterday, Obama took his first leads in Texas while Clinton kept a high single-digit advantage in Ohio. Today, three new polls underscore how close Clinton is to being forced out of the race:

In Ohio, Rasmussen has Clinton up 48% to 43%. A few days ago, Clinton's lead was 8%, and that was already a drop in support. It seems that Obama's campaigning on NAFTA is working, as an overwhelming majority think that he is opposed to NAFTA while the verdict is split about Clinton's position.

In Texas, meanwhile, it seems safe to say that Clinton is no longer the favorite. In the latest PPP survey, the two candidates are tied at 48%, though Hillary leads 52% to 44% among registered Democrats and is not weakening at all among Hispanics (68%). But Obama is getting strong results among Republicans and independents who, PPP notes, "plan to vote in the Democratic primary because of John McCain's status as the presumptive nominee."

Finally, SUSA gives the Texas lead to Obama, 49% to 45%, a 9 point swing in his favor in a week. Obama is picking up grounds among most groups, and holds Hillary to 52% among Hispanics.

Update: Add one more poll showing Clinton's support eroding. SUSA came out with its latest Ohio poll, and shows Clinton up 50% to 44%, holding firm thanks to a 22% lead among women (and a 37% gender gap). Two weeks ago, Clinton led by 17%. Last week, she led by 9%.

As I often note, don't forget that Obama will likely get more delegates out of Texas than his percentage would suggest, so even a 1% lead would give him a significant delegate lead -- and that's not even accounting for the caucuses. Clinton has to change the dynamics of this campaign in the final week in a dramatic way, and things like Chris Dodd's endorsement of the Illinois Senator underscore the challenge she faces that she first needs to explain how she can still win the nomination and try to slow down the Obama coronation.

Tonight's debate (the last one?) is one of her last chances to change the direction of the campaign.

23 Comments:

I think Dodd has a point -- this rivalry between Obama and Clinton is getting rather tiring. I don't think it will go on much longer. The American public has a very short attention span, and it's being pushed rather a bit long in this case. Many viewers will no doubt tune out this last debate. It's almost time for the fat lady to start singing.

When November comes around, and Obama is behind McCain byr 10 to 15 points Senator Dodd and your fat lady will have some questions to answer. Have we all gone crazy inthe Democratic Party? This guy is not better that George McGovern once the GOP slime machine is done with him. Talking about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Your attacks on Obama are ad hominem. That is, you're attacking his person, not what his policies or beliefs. Stop tearing the man down simply because he's black. You say Edwards would be a better candidate. What does John Edwards have that Barack Obama does not have? Oh, I forgot: He's not black!

I cannot believe someone is now saying that if you attack Obama, you're doing it because he's black. I've now heard it all. It seems that if we make valid criticism against Obama, we're racist. So, all you folks who are critical of Hilary, does that make you sexist? Please, give me a break!

Obama is handing the election over to McCain and the Democrats are behaving irrationally. Appealing to Republicans during primary season is giving them two candidates that they want, which means they'll just run to support their party in November (just in case Drudge and his turban picture didn't do enough).

Please answer this question: Why is John Edwards more electable than Barack Obama? There can be only one possible answer. In fact, if you look beyond Obama's skin color, you will see that he has a far stronger appeal than Edwards to a broad swatch of Independents who are sick of the Iraq War and want to change our health care system which is becoming unaffordable to many Americans. So, exactly WHY is Edwards more electable than Obama? Please answer that question.

I agree witrh the previous anonymous's. Obama's support will crumble and give it to McCain. At least he's for pulling out now and soon he'll co-opt the healthcare plans and immigration policies. Obama is a loser. He won't survive the national scene much longer.

There will be many Republicans voting for Obama in the General Election. We (in California) did not get a chance to vote for him in the primary, but we will vote for Obama in the general election. NO REPUBLICAN WILL EVER VOTE FOR HILLARY. BUT THEY WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA.

c.s.stowbridge: Obama is clearly making a case during primary season to woo in Republican voters, but the cost of which is having lost significant Democratic support. Hardcore Democrats? Hillary took every major Democratic stronghold in the season so far (California, New York, and surprisingly Massachusetts in hefty numbers, despite the endorsements from the state's two national senators. And then there's Florida to contend with, a deeply important swing state that could wind up (again) deciding this election, with the state turning out in record numbers to support Hillary, despite her ballot competition being what was essentially 'unstated', or what could be read as anyone but her.

Obama is running a risky strategy on trying to secure states in the general election that typically go Republican, while alienating key Democratic demographics in the process. Primary season is deliberately partisan, and for a reason, but Obama is trying to break out of the Democratic system of things by stirring up untested strategies. It's his lack of experience as a politician (read: Capitol Hill) that is forcing this rather desperate but transparent ploy and unless Hillary can't make a stunning comeback in Texas AND Ohio and then ride into Pennsylvania to seal things up, Republicans will have two candidates to choose from while likely to just go ahead and support their party by default.

As to the Democrats behaving irrationally, that's more of a personal observation, but I do get pretty spooked out by the glazed over smiles from the Obama supporters, and sticking to a candidate who hasn't put up much of an effective platform to stand on, and one who already has a debatable voting record doesn't bode well in the fight against McCain.

I don't think Barack is a lousy candidate for the future, but I really want to win this election and I'm beginning to the get a horrible feeling that come early November, I'm going to wake up from a hideous hangover to the promise of four more awful years to the newly crowned Lord McCain.

I've never understood the idea that Clinton is a better national candidate than Obama (or that she is a viable national candidate at all). I'd love to see any polling numbers or objective evidence that points to it.

Clinton is a liberal champion who strongly inspires her supporers. She is also the arch-nemisis of conservatives, and she is an exremely polarizing figure. The degree to which 40% of America reviles her seems to be completely lost on some Democrats.

I think, if she were to come back to win the nomination, she'd probably squeak it out this year because Republicans are in such bad shape. But I think it is clear Obama is likely to win in a rout.

What have the last two Presidential elections been decided by? Conservative turnout and swing states.

Both of those are horrible drawbacks for Clinton. McCain's presence on the ballot will not inspire Republicans to show up en masse, but Clinton's almost certainly would. This is why I've always thought her Senate spot was perfect for her: she's the new Ted Kennedy, a liberal leader in a safe legislative spot who is seen as a national liberal hero, not a consensus-building moderate (which is what Americans believe they want in their presidents, whether they do or not).

The arguments ome commenters have presented against Obama are missing the point so completely that the don't realize they are what makes him a more viable national candidate. Democrats don't win elections by holding on to their safe states, they win them by grabbing swing states, and Obama can do that.

"c.s.stowbridge: Obama is clearly making a case during primary season to woo in Republican voters, but the cost of which is having lost significant Democratic support."

I don't see that in the polling.

There is an issue of asking to both Obama and Clinton. Giving people three choices will affect their decision in either head-to-head match-ups. You ask a hardcore Clinton supporter who they want to pick, Clinton or McCain, and then ask them who they want to pick, Obama or McCain, they might choose McCain the second time because they really wanted Clinton to win. However, by the time November rolls around, they will pick Obama.

However....

This is still based on the assumption that Clinton can beat McCain easier that Obama can, which is not shown in the polling. There are a few polls and a few states that suggest that, but the overall picture has Obama slightly more electable at this time.

Not to be crass, but I find it highly naive to go on polls that the mainstream media is eagerly spoon feeding to believers as the major bulk of a few messages here in the comments section.

For reasons that I already stated, Clinton is a much stronger candidate to lock up the nomination, as evidenced by primary results in key Democratic strongholds and the all important swing state of Florida. This is going off of real election results NOT polling. Bear in mind that long after Barack got his momentum in high gear, Hillary handily claimed California and Massachusetts by comfortable percentages. Where her campaign is failing to make inroads is with state caucuses which don't go by total votes, but are often delegated to final results through rules that might just as well be decided by a flip of a coin.

To center the Democratic party's frontrunner as someone who can deliver mostly in caucus-fueled elections in what are typically 'red' state territories doesn't leave me with a whole lot of confidence going into November's general; the fact that McCain can easily bleed off independents who will ultimately skew conservative in those territories is even more troubling.

If the Drudge-turban photo is any indication, it's that the Republicans are already exploring options to 'swift-boat' Barack and his campaign while trying to iron out flaws that don't ultimately seem fueled on points of racism (notice that the tribal gear is not being bandied about as African ties, but that it reinforces paranoia about an 'Islamofacist' conspiracy that panders toward right wing ideas on faith and government).

Obama is also being naive when he claims that the Clinton campaign has given him a thorough background check that would have exposed any negative talking points to be revealed before the Republicans and McCain can get around to it. Clinton's hands are tied because Obama is being groomed as one of the party's biggest superstars, and one that will be needed for securing Democratic strength in the years to come; but he needs more time.

First off, "you seem to dismiss Obama winning handily the PRIMARIES in DC, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin - MA, VA and WI are all mid sized states (10 plus EV's) and are democratic (MA), swing (WI) or purple (VA) - so Obama winning these counts for something."

Why shouldn't I dismiss it? Will any of that translate to the general come November? If Obama squares off against McCain, would you still be confident in him being able to deliver in a place such as Virginia? So, no, it doesn't really count for something if it can't become relevant to a Republican face-off. And like you pointed out, it's PRIMARIES; this is partisan season, so trying to win Democratic votes in Republican territories is ridiculous.

Next: "It seems to be a case of confirmation bias. Evidence that suggest Obama will win is ignored, evidence that suggest Clinton will win is embraced."

Huh??? When you say that evidence that points to Obama being able to deliver goes ignored, what are you citing? If anything, the media has been letting Barack coast through this thing while holding him to almost no standards whatsoever, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Oh, and just in case you want real tangible proof that you can hold, touch and even wear (!), check out the little pretty you can pick up at Obama's online store. That should be something that the polls really won't tell you.

About Campaign Diaries

Campaign Diaries is devoted to extensive political analysis and news roundup of anything related to American politics and elections.

Campaign Diaries will feature constant updates on the latest news from the campaign trail and on the meaning of the latest polls and events. Will be covered the presidential and congressional races, with regular updates to the Senate, House and Governor Rankings.